Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

How can anyone seriously be against capital punishment? Watch

Announcements
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OU Student)
    They had that chance before they murdered someone. And how many chances do we give someone?
    Exactly! There must be a line where we say no more!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the mezzil)
    I'm not even going to bother countering you if you think murders should be given opportunities and not punished, and forget about the victim. It's almost as if you are advocating this as it will bring better living standards for the murder.
    Who said anything about not punishing the criminal or forgetting about the victim? The victim of crime should be given support, or in the case of murder, the family. But that support does not extend to exacting revenge on the criminal.

    Punishment is an important part of rehabilitation and prevention. But rehabilitation needs to be the priority, otherwise the punishment is pointless. As I said earlier in the thread, people don't choose who they are, they are a product of everything around them, so punishment for the sake of revenge or for punishments sake is pointless.

    (Original post by OU Student)
    They had that chance before they murdered someone. And how many chances do we give someone?
    Why? Who decides when that cut off point is? And what justification does that cut off point have? Secondly, if someone recommits after leaving prison, thats a failing of the criminal system, not the criminal.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the mezzil)
    Simplistic argumental point. I could just counter that and say say two negatives do make a postive though.
    Care to explain how? And I mean why do you think killing someone for their act of murder is appropriate?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by W-Three)
    That chance isn't limited to one particular instance. People should always have the ability to be given the opportunity and circumstances to contribute to society.

    Not everyone is born with that opportunity or circumstance, in an ideal world, these would be provided before they commit a crime.
    This is the most pathetic bleeding heart liberal tripe I have ever had the displeasure of reading

    (Original post by W-Three)
    Why? Who decides when that cut off point is? And what justification does that cut off point have? Secondly, if someone recommits after leaving prison, thats a failing of the criminal system, not the criminal.

    Yes, lets just blame everyone else except the fully grown and fully aware adult human being who is making the active decision to murder innocents. Literally lost for words, holy ****
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Most who oppose capital punishment for "serious criminal offences" reason from their moral high heels and don't give slight consideration to practicality and humans responding to incentives.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    My answer to this would be:

    which is worse?
    1) Quick death-no real pain
    2) Slowly rotting away in a prison cell

    Personally 1 sounds nicer
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Because I would be very scared, even as a law abiding person, to live in a country under a government who reserve the right to murder me. That's pretty frightening and I thought society had moved past that. Where do we draw the line when we start saying stuff like that is acceptable? None of the arguments for the death penalty make sense to me.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the mezzil)
    Simplistic argumental point. I could just counter that and say say two negatives do make a postive though.
    no they don't, they make a double negative:

    -1 + -1 = -2
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by W-Three)
    Who said anything about not punishing the criminal or forgetting about the victim? The victim of crime should be given support, or in the case of murder, the family. But that support does not extend to exacting revenge on the criminal.

    Punishment is an important part of rehabilitation and prevention. But rehabilitation needs to be the priority, otherwise the punishment is pointless. As I said earlier in the thread, people don't choose who they are, they are a product of everything around them, so punishment for the sake of revenge or for punishments sake is pointless.



    Why? Who decides when that cut off point is? And what justification does that cut off point have? Secondly, if someone recommits after leaving prison, thats a failing of the criminal system, not the criminal.
    You can not rehabilitate a murderer. If you can't get through to them in the first place that killing is wrong, then they are beyond hope. I'm sorry, but that is reality.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Capital punishment isn't a punishment it's a brute force way of stopping that individual. It is not a means of addressing various issues which lead to these behaviours.

    A wrong doing should be delt with by punishment and rehabilitation and the situations should be used to study the underlying reasons as to try to prevent them occuring in the future.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SamSnow009)
    My answer to this would be:

    which is worse?
    1) Quick death-no real pain
    2) Slowly rotting away in a prison cell

    Personally 1 sounds nicer
    Lol. because all murderers really "rot away" in prison. Its not like they can laze around all day, socialise, hit the gym, watch tv, read, play sports, all whilst being fed 3 free meals a day and given free healthcare, and then eventually and in the majority of cases be released after a similar amount of time that someone caught for selling weed would be.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Barden)
    no they don't, they make a double negative:

    -1 + -1 = -2
    Alright let me rephrase - doing a negative act to a negative person = a postive outcome e.g 1--1=2. That is what I meant. Anyway, lets get back on track. A person who murders should be punished by murder/ torture. I don't care if it harms their human rights, they lost those rights when they lost their humanity.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I don't agree with capital punishment, only because there is a chance of killing the wrong person and that is irreversible. I do think prisions should be harsher though, especially for people convicted of serious offences.

    (Original post by W-Three)
    Because there is no such thing as absolute evil. People don't choose who they are, so they deserve a chance to change.
    No. Someone capable of gang-raping an innocent girl so violently she died from the attack will NEVER change.
    • Reporter Team
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Capital punishment gives them the easy option. Therefore I think that it is better if they stay in prison for the rest of there life. However I do not think people like this can change and I do not think that we should give them the chance. I also think that it was there choice and it is there fault.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the mezzil)
    You can not rehabilitate a murderer. If you can't get through to them in the first place that killing is wrong, then they are beyond hope. I'm sorry, but that is reality.
    I'm sorry, but that is you bull****ting. Going to need some evidence that no-one convicted of murder has ever been successfully rehabilitated.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    You don't learn anything from it and it doesn't deter people. IMHO these criminals should be locked up where they can't harm anyone, & studied so we can find out what caused them to commit this crime in the first place and try and prevent someone else from doing the same thing in the future.

    You might not learn enough to prevent things happening every time, but you'll have more of a chance of doing so than if you just executed them & learnt nothing.

    (Original post by Double Agent)
    That politician... what exactly do people mean when they say we should only use the death penalty in cases where there's an absence of all doubt?

    As opposed to what exactly? Those moments when judges pass sentence because the accused "looked a bit rapey/murderey?"

    Someone being found innocent in an appeal doesn't automatically mean the prosecution weren't absolutely convinced the first time around.

    It would be pointless to debate with someone like that though, it's all just pandering for votes from people who hear only what they want to hear.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the mezzil)
    Alright let me rephrase - doing a negative act to a negative person = a postive outcome e.g 1--1=2. That is what I meant. Anyway, lets get back on track. A person who murders should be punished by murder/ torture. I don't care if it harms their human rights, they lost those rights when they lost their humanity.
    How the hell does 1--1 represent 'doing a negative act to a negative person'? Serious clutching at straws here.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    So many reasons.

    It's a flawed system with the very real capacity to punish the innocent..irrevocably.
    It's a system of revenge.
    It is not a detterent to crime of any sort.
    It teaches that an eye for an eye is a just form of punishment.
    Every human being has certain rights, and we as a society should aspire to champion these rights.
    Because an individual breaks another persons rights, this does not mean that we ignore theres.
    As a society and as individuals we have to be above that.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the mezzil)
    Simple, reform the court system. Limit the amounts of appeals people can have.
    And raise the chances of killing innocent people?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by combbrah)
    Lol. because all murderers really "rot away" in prison. Its not like they can laze around all day, socialise, hit the gym, watch tv, read, play sports, all whilst being fed 3 free meals a day and given free healthcare, and then eventually and in the majority of cases be released after a similar amount of time that someone caught for selling weed would be.
    Where are you getting this from? It's not true, hahaha. A petty criminal might get these luxuries, but you clearly have no idea how a prison of any real security actually works.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.